No, I am going to have the intelligence and motivation to do it myself. I get tired of begin told that, *you* don't understand optics", *YOU* don't understand SCIENCE, *you* don't understand us (the OD) when we tell you that prevention is totally impossible. I get disgusted by that terrible "attitude".

As an Engineer, I learned the "hard way", that if I want something done RIGHT - I have NO CHOICE - but to do it myself.

What I am doing is NOT the "practice of medicine" but the practice of SELF-PROTECTING KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM. I am sorry if an OD feel "insulted" if he thinks I do not "trust him". I always check my Snellen BEFORE I go to an OD or MD. Then when they "prescribe" both a "plus" lens with "astigmitism", I simply go home, read the 20/20 line - and "don't bother with the "un-necessary" prescription.

Subject: Who is LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for my distant vision. The OD, or *myself*?

We often THINK an OD should be interested, and PRESCRIBE a plus lens to us - so we could get "out of it" as Todd has done.

This has proven to be impossible. This is why I perform the OBJECTIVE tests on myself - to confirm that my visual acuity always EXCEEDS the 20/40 line (and much better). As long as I do that successfully, the OD needs NO INVOLVEMENT IN MY VISION PRESERVATION WORK. In other words, I "draw a line" and by reading my own Snellen, and wearing a plus, to keep my refractive STATE at zero to +1.0 diopters - I keep my 20/20 vision, and always pass the required DMV test. (I always go to a doctor for honest-to-God, TRUE medical problems, if I have any. I always recommend that we all do that. But when it comes to protecting *MY* distant vision, I have no choice but to do it myself. This does not mean "conflict", it just means "educated responsiblity", and the use of a plus if my Snellen starts to go down towards 20/30.

Here is the reason, stated a long time ago. People simply do not "understand" or "like" the intentional wearing of a plus for prevention, as stated here:

People will ask, "...I do not see WHY I should be wearing a plus - when they are at 20/40 to 20/60.." I agree that it MIGHT seem "un-reasonable", until you read Dr. Prentice's statement. It takes a good mind, and resolve, to keep your vision during the years we spend in school, college and graduate school. What has become available, through one EXCELLENT plus study, is the information, that the person himself must "wise up" about this issue. It is not a "medical issue", it is a matter of self-education, if you profoundly value your distant vision, and have the great resolve to start with the plus, and continue to wear it though the school year.

I have no "fight" with an OD in an office. It is just that he can not "legally" help me, so I must do this "optometry" on myself. I hope you understand.

I have seen some truly bad "prescriptions" of people who pass the DMV, yet are prescribed a -1, -2 and even a -3 diopter lens. This is due to, "best visual acuity" testing, that gives you 20/15 vision - when you have 20/50 vision - and could, with wisdom and plus-effort, slowly get back to 20/20. Here is the "optometrist".

I give up. I have my own Snellen, which is accurate. If I have 20/50 vision (self checked) I would use a -1 to confirm my eyes have the ability to read the 20/20 line (for my own protection and safety.) Then I would use my "trial lens" in this way:

I finally realized that no OD gives a damn about *my* long-term vision - so I have to do prevention myself. There is no other choice. Here are the lenses I use for my personal checking - for about $20.

The courage to take these steps? Are they "crude" and simple? Perhaps they are not "computerized", but they are objective when I do them. Going to an OD for these measurements - is out of the question. No OD can help me.

Reference: We think they should SUPPORT true-prevention. In fact they are rabidly hostile to prevention (at 20/50) when it could be effective.

I do not like to "by-pass" optometrists, and I truly do not wish to "fight" with them. But some people BELIEVE that an honest review of discussion could be developed with them. Here is proof that such an idea is impossible. Read it - and make your own choice.

+++++

Subject: If you think your office-OD is going to have an honest discussion aboutprevention (at 20/50 and -1.0 diopters) then here is the typical response.

From Mr. Blue OD

Otis> Subject: Hell will freeze over - before you will be of any help withthreshold prevention.

Mr. Big Blue Nation OD> Hell will freeze over before you show scientific proofthat is even 1/2 as complete as the evidence AGAINST what you claim. we arewaiting. what is your proof in humans? not old pilot stories. not studies onanimals. not some website with unsubstantiated claims. your time would bebetter spent digging a bomb shelter

++++++

Otis> You can judge Blue as you wish. I prefer technical analysis, and gettingsupport from ODs who are honest about the problem of 1) Long term near and 2)The adverse effect of a strong minus - worn all the time. Here is thescientific argument against Blue Nation.

Otis> As per Soon See - it is clear that some ODs have the RIGHT IDEA. But just try to get any person to even begin to UNDERSTAND WHY a plus is necessary - IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Otis> I think part of the problem is "legal". If you are at 20/40, and do not "recover" - you can sue your OD for FRAUD and collet $500,000.

Otis> Please do not expect ANYTHING from an OD. His life - has NOTHING to do with successful prevention. That should be our FIRST lesson in prevention. I am just glad that some people do this ON THEIR OWN.